Israel’s Dilemma in Gaza

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:At this strategic watershed moment, one can discern the logic of the policy that has guided the Netanyahu government’s approach to Gaza over the past decade – that it is in Israel’s interest for Hamas to remain in control until the group is rejected by its own people.

It is too soon to assess the potential of the recent demonstrations in the Gaza Strip to take a sharp turn. Even without knowing how things might develop, it is clear that as of now, the extent of the demonstrations and the civilians’ daring willingness to confront Hamas indicate the cumulative distress of the Gaza population.

Eight years after the initial shock of the “Arab Spring,” the Hamas government in Gaza understands that the potential threat could become real as public rage grows.

As of now, even if the Gazans’ fury is not leading towards a direct threat to Hamas rule in Gaza, it is nevertheless compelling the group’s leadership to recognize the need for an immediate solution, even a symbolic one, for the mass distress.

From that perspective, recent events can shed fresh light on the various considerations that come to bear on the Israeli government’s measured military responses to provocations from Gaza.

Over the past year, in deciding on policy and actions regarding Gaza, Israel has had to grapple with the basic question of whether an overall war to defeat the Hamas regime is in its own interests.

Recent events have added another aspect to those deliberations. When he was defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman repeatedly said that Israel should bide its time until the people of Gaza rose up against Hamas, which is responsible for their hardships.

Now that we see the first glimpses of mass popular protests, Israel’s dilemma is thrown into sharp relief: Should it seek to alleviate the humanitarian plight in Gaza by continuing to transfer money to the Hamas government, thus helping it secure its rule there; or suspend those transfers in the hope that the popular distress will cause the situation to shift in Israel’s favor?

At this strategic watershed moment, one can discern the logic of the policy that has guided the Netanyahu government’s approach to Gaza over the past decade – that it is in Israel’s interest for Hamas to remain in control until the group is rejected by its own people.

The choice not to take decisive action against Hamas, which played out in Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 and in all the major decisions the Israeli government has made this past year, apparently stems from a deliberate strategic approach.

On the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord, it is worth recalling that then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was politically savvy enough to leave the Gaza Strip in Israel’s hands. The burden of finding a solution to the Palestinian problem in Gaza, as well as in the West Bank, thus became Israel’s alone to bear.

The cutoff between Gaza and Ramallah, initiated by Hamas, also works in Israel’s favor. For now, it gives Hamas a kind of immunity, but in the long term, it will allow Israel to reach a better arrangement for the region.

This is an edited version of an article published in Israel Hayom on March 17, 2019.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served in the IDF for forty-two years. He commanded troops in battles with Egypt and Syria. He was formerly a corps commander and commander of the IDF Military Colleges.

Featured Articles

Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.

The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.

North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.

Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.

Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.

The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.